Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Alpha Mail: the female process

Sarahsdaughter lays down some vital observations concerning female communication and behavior that every man needs to comprehend:

Because I have to thoroughly think through these things, I've come to understand that my first response is often times 1)emotional and irrational 2)based in fear (not truth) 3)not the same response I might have later after processing information 4)should not be verbalized until said processing of information is done.

We, as women understand and find no issue with the fact that we need to go through these processes in order to figure out what is true - even when it comes to our feelings. We want to talk it through. And then, we have a tendency to arrive at new conclusions without going back and apologizing for emotional outbursts that were based on wrong conclusions.

This is one thing game teaches men (and women) that haven't been privy to understanding women's nature prior. Ignore what women say, and observe what they do. They are not logical nor rational in their first responses to stimuli or information. And they are not prone to taking responsibility for wrong behavior.

This gets at the heart of the greater part of what is considered "sexism" today. And yet, who is the more truly sexist, those who simply acknowledge the readily observable or those who deny it, and in denying it, remove from women the responsibility for being accountable for their words and actions. Feminism isn't about sexual equality. It isn't even about female superiority, per se. It is, rather, primarily concerned with according women formal adult status and privileges without adult responsibilities.

117 comments:

taterearl
said...

In the opportunity to help women with men's communication process....

It can translate to men too because even though we are logical brutes...we can succumb to emotion.

If you are in control of your emotions...you usually skip the first 3 steps and land on 4. It's a masculine strength quality. If you catch your man on a bad day, he can lash out the same way. Therefore men need to be slow to anger...to give her the opportunity to go through this process and to not appear weak to her.

Feminism is a lark. Either it is true or it is not true. This woman seems to be admitting that the capacity isn't there for what even she considers personally responsible adult behavior, and seems to be implicating her peers as well. You seem to simply say, if then, thus. But the fact is, women aren't responsible, and basically can't be held to it, in this and I would argue other ways. Which, as I said, means feminism is a joke. At least as it stands in these modern times.

Real feminism, that accounts for that, and thus a lower societal status in some regards, and greater in other regards as per her choices, which was used to support the family? That is a form of feminism I can get behind. Handily... (If they don't find you handsome...)

Often whether something is important or urgent won't be evaluated quickly - there are trivial things which cause big emotional spikes. But the verbal reaction will be in proportion to the emotional spike, whether it is urgent, important, or even accurate.

So one quick bit of misdirection is to use something with high emotional push before the information from the earlier thing can be processed. Even if it is something un-nice. Most women won't notice the subject has been changed. Sometimes they never notice.

The initial verbal response IS an emotional outburst, even when said with an even tone. Listening to that is the problem. It isn't based on wrong conclusions, it isn't based on any conclusions, only the instant "It makes me feel X".

In the context of a (physically weaker) woman protecting herself and the children, the She-Hulk transformation is probably an advantage. Attacking a small rational male is one thing, invoking the psycho bitch is another. (I recall a coworker with his wife who was at an event and there was a small exchange of words in the parking lot - and the man was big and athletic and it settled down quickly - while his wife was getting the tire iron out of the trunk).

Some years back when I digested the red pill, after a few brutal experiences involving stepkids and money, I carefully scraped together all the shit, all the drama, and all the outrage, and placed it carefully upon my wife's shoulders.

There followed a period of her expressing more outrage, followed by me explaining that

1) I was only interested in what she does, not what she says2) no more fucking handouts, no fucking exceptions ever3) or prepare to see my ass fading into the distance, never to return.

Everything changed within about a week. Marriage has been bliss ever since. The kids all figured out how to pay their own bills. The wife was relieved to not have to get involved in the drama anymore.

This woman seems to be admitting that the capacity isn't there for what even she considers personally responsible adult behavior, and seems to be implicating her peers as well.

It's not that we are not capable of it. It's that emotion is what is going to come first. It isn't unit we can work through that emotion that a logical response can be given. We are no longer required by society to work through that emotion. Rather, we are encouraged to wallow in it. Luckily some of us have men in our lives that have required we work out our own crap before we bring it on them or anyone else.

Feminism wants that male influence on us gone so we can continue to wallow. However, we are more than capable of reaching that final step of rationality. I simply think most women need to be taught this whereas is comes more naturally to men.

Feminism, therefore, is like one of those "magic" financial derivatives. Kind of like a credit default swap based on collateralized debt obligations.

It's easily sold to the sociosexually naive market participant (women) who think that they have purchased upside gain while simultaneously transferring all downside risk to the counterparty (men).

This derivative allows them to fly high with glory when their stupidity pays off, and pass the costs and blame off to men when they fail.

Example:Woman named to CEO position = proof of her amazing capabilities, proof that she beat out the male contenders. The men are regarded as lesser, or failures.

Women not selected for CEO position = proof of sexism and bad male behavior.

Women are either successes or martyrs, men are either failures or children.

And just like the financial version, the composition of this social 'agreement' is a Frankenstein's Monster of incongruent and incompatible elements, leading to a Gordian Knot of second- and third-order (hell, n-order) consequences.

The aftermath will probably hold many parallels to the financial collapse.

The demands for bailouts (in the form of even more feminism) will increase exponentially. Tradcons will join the chorus, because even though they "hate" feminism, they hate even more seeing a woman disappointed (odd, since it is the default state).

The only solution is to have your assets placed in instruments that are inconvenient or non-convertible to their cause.

VD . . . Thank you for the clarifications, and thank you all who took the time to respond to my impassioned rant in the last few days. I do apologize. I generally do think before I hit "send."

To see that I'm following, proper term is Theory of Game and it is inanimate so has no goals, but like gravity, has observable effects, i.e., penetration of strange vagina, prevent divorce. Also, I did read more on Female Imperative and yes, it is grim to think of life without it. As I've aged, it has become more apparent that less breaks are given me; as a result, I've learned to take less for granted and to show my appreciation more. That interchangeable vagina thing was probably my point of hysteria. Truth hurts, especially when you're obsolete.

Trust . . . Broader point taken. Specifically, I don't expect or ask my husband to do any of my chores, nor does he except when it suits him. I still have Res Ispa's image in my mind of how to appropriately thank him.

SD, this is not personal or to beat to a dead horse, but just curious, men - if your wife was sexually aroused (and showed you in no uncertain terms), and you asked her later what that was all about and she said, "You become very attractive to me when I see you lovingly interact with the children," would this disgust you?

Also SD, I did just choose the "Disillusioned" moniker for that day/moment and hissy fit, now I have to live with it, but best of luck changing your diet. I've been working on that for 2-3 years now and it is well-worth it. Once you start eating cleaner, you really notice when you don't. I had a LOT more sugar than normal this past week, so maybe . . . (rationalizing; dammit. I'm still a f-ing female).

I simply think most women need to be taught this whereas is comes more naturally to men.

I probably does come more naturally to men, but something else comes more naturally to men too: consequences.

For a man, the consequences of wallowing in emotion are usually immediate and potentially severe. A guy who doesn't control his emotions is likely to get the crap beat out of him. He may end up dead if he's really obtuse about it.

We've been reducing the amount of crap-beating-out-of that's going on for a good thirty years in our schools. I wonder if that's partly responsible for the number of gamma males around these days?

TrustI have no doubt that my 91 year old grandmother understands both men and women better than most modern enlightened women today combined.

This is probably true. My mother is 93 and I am loathe to admit much of what she spewed to me during my formative years wasn't bilge. I took the feminist bate, though the events of my life (brought on by my own choices) have caused me to back down and rethink. As much as my mother galls me (she's not a very nice woman), I am very grateful she set an example of doing her job as wife/mother in an exemplary manor. My parents were sensible people. I still muck(ed) around in my own foolishness for a long time.

if your wife was sexually aroused (and showed you in no uncertain terms), and you asked her later what that was all about and she said, "You become very attractive to me when I see you lovingly interact with the children," would this disgust you?

Not necessarily and should he believe her and coincidentally stop doing what was actually turning her on yet continue to lovingly interact with the children eventually she'll assume she's just "fallen out of love with him." Voila, no fault divorce/cash and prizes.

@JA - it works both ways. Controlling the emotions is part of the practice of the cardinal virtues, prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice. The loss of control might be going weak and whiny, but might also go into a flare of hot anger. Both can lead to bad consequences - beating the crap out of someone else over a small matter is no better than being the victim.

The gamma push is because we laud and reward that behavior (GMP - greatest management principle - we get more of what we reward, less of what we penalize). Yet by extension, alpha behavior is also rewarded - but not just the confidence but the hubris. The Mortgage Crisis and the destruction of the financial system - and even LTCM earlier was not a bunch of gammas.

Nothing in moderation.

Virtue, self-control, is not along the alpha-beta-gamma-delta-omega continuum. Perhaps it means we should all be sigmas? Or be whichever we are called to but transformed and redeemed. The Christian man and woman as described in the Bible is not to be found within Game. It was found within Christian Tradition until feminism infected everything including most churches even to the point of looking askance at Divorce even though it was called a civil institution. (CS Lewis "Tao" from the Abolition of Man - in India and their culture even here they have successful arranged marriages!).

You are in the world but not of it. [Jesus] I have overcome the world.

@Disillusioned: "Nice" comes from the latin nicere which means something like "ignorant". Your mother might not be "nice", but she sounds holy. Most men initially want to find a "nice" girl to use (Dalrock's drunk party girl post comes to mind). "Doing her job as wife/mother" is rare today.

As to arousal by fathers, I think it would depend if they were mock-fighting, wrestling, or something parallel where Daddy was acting strong, taking risks (tossing the child and catching even for the daughters), or instead was playing cuddly and sweet. If the former, especially if the wife wanted to have similar fun, I think he would happily oblige...

My mother was an incredibly dutiful, hardworking homemaker (possibly a little germophic/OCD, my sibs have surmised), but unfortunately, she was bitchy towards her husband/my father, so not sure she qualifies for holy. He figured out how to live with her though; they each did their jobs very well; their agreement worked out.

Much of the valid information she possessed about the realities of men and women she delivered in an angry/hostile way. I am also guilty of behaving as if some of this male/female stuff is more unfair burden than reality better understood and maximized for what it is. She accepted it - but bitterly - and I rejected it, seeing the illusion of feminism as more promising for too many years.

2) Due to 1) above, steps #1 and #2 are merely continuously cycled through, though usually they imagine that in this cycling though the first two steps they are actually progressing through the last two steps.

3) It assumes that "understanding" or "knowledge" or "learning" has some finite point. It does not. So now we have to constantly cycle through #1 and #2 to #4? IS this not saying that the woman learned nothing the first time around so far as problem solving goes.

4) It is highly solipsistic. This women imagines that "she" figures "it" out. This is hardly the case in the real world. It fact, it is most likely the case that someone else "figured it out", most likely a male, and one who "figured it out" 1000 years ago, btw, but it in fact could be someone, again most likely a male, that was in the room during steps #1 and #2. What about that? Will the "woman" admit that? Why does he have to put up with the woman's nonsense (this is a corollary to 3) above.)

5) What happens when her conclusions at step #4 are wrong? (this is another corollary to 3) above.)

6) It is absurd to imagine that there is a gender specific process to thought, knowledge, learning or decision making. We have a very clear and quite ancient understanding of logic, epistemology, metaphysics etc. Little of modern civilization has either improved or disproved this understanding (quite the opposite, in fact). This notion of a female process is just an attempt to dodge these things and thereby escape responsibility and accountability. Next we will be hearing about "female intuition", which is yet another rhetorical hustle.

There is not a "female logic" anymore than there is a "Chinese logic". There is not "Irish physics" and "Japanese" physics. This is just some sort of Gnostic hogwash.

Feminism is in one sense merely a set of suppositions based on nothing be a vainglorious denial of reality. At its root is a juvenile narcissism. It is not about equality at all but merely an attempt to dodge responsibility and accountability in the course of self-promotion. It is an attempt to avoid reality.

The minute that "women" are held accountable in the sense that men are, and forced to accept an honest appraisal of the accomplishments, or, rather, the lack of them, Feminism is exposed as the sham that it is.

Unfortunately, our civilization is so far gone that this sort of honesty will not happen in our lifetime. It will take a great deal of destruction before we will see sanity in this area.

We, as women understand and find no issue with the fact that we need to go through these processes in order to figure out what is true - even when it comes to our feelings. We want to talk it through. And then, we have a tendency to arrive at new conclusions without going back and apologizing for emotional outbursts that were based on wrong conclusions.

This can look like kicking a man just for the sheer angry pleasure of it. If a woman kicks the family dog on a regular basis, eventually the dog will avoid the woman on a permanent basis. Men are expected to be more loyal, or more stupid, than dogs - or maybe both.

This process also can look more like "lying" and "betrayal of trust". Men are willing to put up with such things from infants, toddlers, children and even teenagers. Some of us have higher standards for those who claim to be adults; we expect more from them than from toddlers, infants, children or teenagers.

Those adults who claim the privilege of acting like children when it suits them, should be treated as children always.

I have a question - what would be the biological purpose in we women being this way? I believe in creation and I know others here may not but however you believe we got here, is there a purpose? Or would you (if of the Christian persuasion) call this a part of our fallen nature? If there IS a biological purpose, how would it be used correctly, as opposed to women remaining in perpetual childhood? Or is just a bad tendency to be overcome to where we think more like men do?

SD - Not necessarily and should he believe her and coincidentally stop doing what was actually turning her on yet continue to lovingly interact with the children eventually she'll assume she's just "fallen out of love with him." Voila, no fault divorce/cash and prizes.

@Sarah - I did read Roissy. Of course, I can easily understand the emotional nature of women contributing to the raising of children and forming social bonds.

I recognize myself in the process you described: "Because I have to thoroughly think through these things, I've come to understand that my first response is often times 1)emotional and irrational 2)based in fear (not truth) 3)not the same response I might have later after processing information 4)should not be verbalized until said processing of information is done." In consideration of point 4, then, it seems our feminine nature is something to overcome? I can't see right now how being emotional/irrational/fearful would positively impact anyone around us, the only exception being the protective instinct a mother (hopefully) has toward her child. But even that instinct often proves counterproductive where every child must get a participation trophy, for example, so nobody's feelings get hurt.

That aspect of it, yes. There's nothing wrong with that. God gave us perfect instruction on what to do once we learn our limitations. God gave all of us perfect instruction on how to live life considering our limitations and sin nature.

Disillusioned, she was turned on because after he got home from work he changed his clothes, went into the garage and lifted weights for 30 minutes. When he was finished he walked into the kitchen where she was, slapped her ass as he walked by her, paused, drew her attention to his biceps and said, "you like that doncha" then walked away, and took a shower. Afterwards he scooped up junior and said, "come here son, how's my boy today?"

It's not that we are not capable of it. It's that emotion is what is going to come first. It isn't unit we can work through that emotion that a logical response can be given. We are no longer required by society to work through that emotion. Rather, we are encouraged to wallow in it. Luckily some of us have men in our lives that have required we work out our own crap before we bring it on them or anyone else.

The female mind does seem to exist in cycle of irrationality, emotion, fears.

For me, its the problem of overthinking and mini fears. With time or age fears seems to shift to what is more important or more towards the eternal versus the temporal. OveraLl, being trapped in a woman's brain isn't easy or fun.

SD - Not a lot of iron-pumping or ass-slapping going on here. There is, however, a marriage contract that both of us have honored for nearly 24 years despite the state of our genital arousal. After I disposed of my feminist fallacies that he should care about domestic chores or childcare duties despites us each working 40 hr/wk outside the home making the same dough, I proposed I stay home. We reworked our finances and I became full-time homemaker, part-time freelancer.

I do all the home stuff with no expectation he’s going to 1) notice unless they're neglected, 2) paint my nails, 3) bring me gifts, 4) care about my feelings, 5) give me oral sex while sorting and folding the laundry, 6) accept nicely my refusal of sexual advances (of which there have been two: while morning sick & when my mother - who still barges in on me in the bathroom - was roaming the hall during a visit), 7) be relegated to hand lotion and subsequently confess before a congregation his destruction of our home because of his internet porn addiction (esp. since he’s not a Christian, addicted to porn, nor do I attend church).

What does work is my respect and admiration for the things he does tirelessly, i.e., provision, regardless of how he feels or behaves toward me. His care for our (now grown) son fueled my attraction to him so that when he did approach me for sex - regardless of the state of my genitals - I was willing (i.e., made a decision) to participate and reciprocate.

Not discounting the wisdom of game (nor Res Ipsa’s advice), that’s just how it happens here.

When you say things like "despite the state of *our genital arousal" And "I was willing (i.e. made a decision) to participate and reciprocate." You are giving examples of what should occur in marriage. The unfortunate thing is that this is not the norm.

So, what can a man in a sexless marriage do? Find out what men who do have unlimited access to sex from turned on wives do.

*if your husband is healthy, the state of his genitals is arousal and a want/need/desire for sex at least twice a week, if not more.

SD, this is not personal or to beat to a dead horse, but just curious, men - if your wife was sexually aroused (and showed you in no uncertain terms), and you asked her later what that was all about and she said, "You become very attractive to me when I see you lovingly interact with the children," would this disgust you?

The best word for it in the femspeak dictionary would probably be "creepy", although it doesn't mean quite the same thing to men,as "creepiness" doesn't have the libido-dampening effect in us. Women with butch haircuts and/or hairy armpits are "disgusting",but the kind of scenario you're talking about is just utterly alien to the male sex,it just comes across as weird to me.

We men get turned on by markers of fitness inherent to the woman. It's the same biological purpose,but we observe different markers,hence while a man might admire your childbearing hips,he is not at all aroused or sexually affected by your actual mothering,though he might make utilitarian or moral estimations of the latter.

Basically,no foul there. The male response to such a scenario is typically bemused acceptance.